Honors Senior Theses/Projects Student Scholarship
6-1-2017
A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to Phrasal Verbs:
A Teacher's Guide
Daniel Thom
Western Oregon University
Follow this and additional works at:https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/honors_theses
This Undergraduate Honors Thesis/Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at Digital Commons@WOU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Senior Theses/Projects by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@WOU. For more information, please contactdigitalcommons@wou.edu.
Recommended Citation
Thom, Daniel, "A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to Phrasal Verbs: A Teacher's Guide" (2017).Honors Senior Theses/Projects. 139.
A Cognitive Linguistic
Approach to Phrasal Verbs
A Teacher’s Guide
By Daniel Thom
An Honors Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Graduation from the
Western Oregon University Honors Program
Dr. Robert A. Troyer, Thesis Advisor Dr. Gavin Keulks, Honors Program Director
June, 2017
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude for all those who helped me see this thesis to completion. It was a long and arduous process, and I certainly would not have completed it without the help of many key individuals.
First, I would like to thank Dr. Robert Troyer, my thesis advisor, who helped me narrow down my topic to a manageable size and aided me in setting deadlines to finish the project in time for submission. He provided me with invaluable insight and helped me think through the project from a more pedagogical and practical angle to produce something useful for teachers. His course on corpus linguistics also gave me the ability and knowledge to comfortably select example texts for my project from COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English) instead of generating example sentences on my own. I would not have completed this project without his support and creative coaching.
While Dr. Troyer helped me bring the project to completion, Dr. David Hargreaves was instrumental with formulating ideas with me, especially in the early stages of this project, as he was the first to introduce me to many of these concepts. His class on semantics and pragmatics opened the door to a new way of thinking for me, and it has influenced every research project I have worked on since. He even guided me through an independent study for a term last year which allowed me to explore elements and
applications of the conceptual metaphor theory. While it did not logistically work out to have him advise me on this project, Dr. Hargreaves has mentored me in this project and has refined much of my understanding on this subject matter.
In regards to mentors and teachers, I would also like to thank Dr. Cornelia
me and gave me opportunities to research and expand my knowledge in their courses. I would also like to thank Dr. Katherine Schmidt, the director of the writing center on campus, who has mentored me in writing for the past few years; the opportunities I have received working at the writing center have been invaluable as I have gone through drafting and revisions of the project.
I am incredibly indebted to all who offered their thoughts and insights, especially providing me with their feedback on the teacher handbook chapter. Specifically, I would like to thank Yan, my colleague at the English Tutoring Center. Also, thank you Andres Classen, my roommate, who has given me invaluable pedagogical advice on the project. I would like to thank my family for their support and assistance as I have finished this project, not only with their feedback and comments, but also with their patience with me. I would like to thank my mom and dad; my fiancé, Jirae; and my three sisters, Janessa, Carolyn, and Christine, who helped me establish this paper.
Last, but certainly not least, I would like to recognize Dr. Gavin Keulks, the
director of the WOU Honors Program, for his tireless efforts to help motivate, encourage, and guide me through my project. Thank you for all your help and graciousness.
Table of Contents Acknowledgments ... 2 Table of Contents ... 4 Thesis Abstract ... 6 1. Introduction ... 7
1.1Purpose of the Thesis ... 8
1.2Research Questions ... 9
1.3Objectives for the Thesis ... 9
1.4Scope of the Thesis ... 10
1.5Organization of the Thesis ... 10
2. Literature Review and Discussion of Theory ... 12
2.1 Introduction to Phrasal Verbs ... 12
2.2 Difficulties with Learning Phrasal Verbs ... 13
2.3 The Traditional Approach to Phrasal Verbs ... 16
2.3.1 The Lexico-Semantic View of Meaning ... 16
2.3.2 Traditional Understandings of Phrasal Verbs ... 16
2.3.3 Weaknesses of the Traditional View ... 19
2.4 The Cognitive Approach to Phrasal Verbs ... 22
2.4.1 Introduction to Cognitive Linguistic Theory ... 23
2.4.2 The Embodiment Principle and Language ... 27
2.4.3 Cognitive Linguistic Applications to Phrasal Verbs ... 29
2.5 Cognitive Linguistics in English Language Teaching ... 32
2.6 Reasons for the Lack of ELT Application ... 34
2.7 Proposed Solution: CL Teacher Handbook ... 35
3. Teacher’s Guide to CL Approach to Phrasal Verbs ... 37
3.1 General Introduction ... 37
3.1.1 Introduction to the Handbook ... 37
3.1.2 Importance of Explicit Instruction with Phrasal Verbs ... 39
3.2 Foundations in Phrasal Verb Teaching ... 42
3.2.1 Introduction to Teaching Phrasal Verbs ... 42
3.2.2 The Meaning of Phrasal Verbs ... 44
3.2.3 What Makes Phrasal Verbs Difficult to Learn? ... 45
3.2.4 How are the Meanings of Phrasal Verbs Related? ... 47
3.2.5 Can Teacher Teach Phrasal Verbs? ... 47
3.3 Cognitive Linguistics: A Foundation in Theory ... 48
3.3.1 Conceptual Metaphor Theory... 49
3.3.2 Understanding Conceptual Metaphors ... 50
3.3.3 The Ubiquity and Importance of Metaphors ... 51
3.4.1 The Spatial (Prototypical) Meaning of Particles ... 53
3.4.2 Phrasal Verb Usage: Transparent Meanings ... 54
3.4.3 Extended Meanings of Particles ... 55
3.4.4 Metaphorical Extensions of Phrasal Verbs ... 56
3.4.5 A Closer Look at Metaphorical Extension ... 57
3.4.6 OUT: Local Extensions with the Container Metaphor ... 58
3.4.7 OUT Global Extensions with Conditions as Containers ... 61
3.4.8 Generalizing Phrasal Verb Extension ... 63
3.5 Pedagogical Approaches to Phrasal Verbs ... 64
3.5.1 From Theory to Practice ... 64
3.5.2 Weaknesses of Traditional Pedagogical Approaches ... 65
3.5.3 The Importance of Conceptual Visualization ... 66
3.5.4 Landmark and Trajector ... 67
3.5.5 Using Trajector and Landmark to Represent Metaphors ... 69
3.5.6 Further Adaptions to Landmark and Trajector ... 71
3.5.7 Benefits of a Conceptual Approach ... 73
3.5.8 Application in the Classroom... 74
3.5.9 Resources for Further Knowledge ... 77
3.6 Appendix A ... 80
3.7 Appendix B ... 81
4. Project Discussion and Reflection ... 83
4.1 Reflection on the Completed Handbook ... 83
4.2 Significance of the Thesis ... 85
4.3 Limitations of the Study ... 85
4.4 Suggestions for Future Research and Development ... 85
4.5 Conclusion ... 86
Abstract
Although ubiquitous in the English language, phrasal verbs are one of the most difficult constructions for English language learners to learn, as their meanings have traditionally been regarded as arbitrary and chaotic. However, recent developments in cognitive linguistics have shed light onto schematic motivations of phrasal verb meanings and thus present a number of pedagogical applications. The purpose of this thesis is to provide English language teachers with a foundation in the theory and pedagogical approaches to teaching phrasal verbs, using a cognitive linguistic framework.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In the beginning of my sophomore year at Western Oregon University, I decided to take a semantics and pragmatics course which completely revolutionized my way of thinking. As I began to learn how meaning is constructed and reflected through
language, I wanted to expand my knowledge and explore further applications of those theories. Eventually, my passion for meaning and language converged with another passion: English language teaching.
Through the process of earning my TEFL certification and gaining experiences in English teaching, I was exposed to the challenges that teachers face trying ground their teaching and pedagogy in research. During one teaching experience in particular, my eyes were opened to the disconnect between research and pedagogy as I struggled through a lesson on teaching phrasal verbs. The teacher lesson plan was poorly designed and informed by outdated theories, and, despite my efforts to modify the activity, the students struggled to grasp the concepts. I had been researching theories in semantics for over two years, and many researchers I read had mentioned applications to idiomatic expressions like phrasal verbs. However, when it came to teaching these language
features, I found it incredibly difficult to translate the theory into lesson plans and activities in the classroom. Despite my knowledge, I was still unable to effectively apply my research into my teaching.
I have come to realize that I am not alone in this disconnect. Many ESL teachers struggle to ground their pedagogy in research. Part of the problem is institutional:
teachers are not adequately prepared or given chances for professional development. Yet perhaps the larger problem is that many research developments are never directly applied to teachers. In order for teachers to educate themselves about a given topic, they are required to read multiple studies, books, and papers to become adequately equipped in that subject matter.
For my particular topic -- cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching phrasal verbs -- there are a number of works that detail the theory and others that focus on the pedagogy, but there is no cohesive introduction for teachers. This disconnect between research and practice catalyzed my thesis project: I wanted to create a comprehensive introduction that makes the pertinent theories accessible and shows teachers how they can apply the research to their classrooms. After reading this thesis, teachers should have the knowledge and tools to craft lesson plans, incorporating these concepts.
1.1 Purpose of the Thesis
Over the last 40 years, developments in the field of cognitive linguistics have shown that the meanings of phrasal verbs are conceptually related to each other, and studies have revealed the positive benefits of utilizing these approaches in classroom teaching. Nevertheless, these breakthroughs in research have done little to change the way phrasal verbs and idiomatic expressions are taught in ELT contexts. This thesis attempts to change the current reality and make these concepts accessible for a wide range of teachers.
As previously mentioned, there is often a disconnect between research and pedagogy, and this is particularly true of idiomatic language features like phrasal verbs. Many textbooks are based on outdated theories of language and, as a result, fail to
present phrasal verbs in a comprehensible way. Thus, the purpose for this thesis is to bridge the gap between research in the field of cognitive linguistics and the teachers in the field who could benefit from its pedagogical insights.
1.2 Research Questions
There are two primary questions driving the current thesis project: 1. How can we teach phrasal verbs more effectively?
2. Given that we find an effective way to teach phrasal verbs, how can we present this knowledge to teachers in a way that is comprehensible?
1.3 Objectives for the Thesis
Building directly on the research questions, the objective of the thesis is bipartite: discover the best approaches for classifying and teaching phrasal verbs and then find a way to present those insights to teachers. In our digital age, pedagogical resources abound on topics like idioms and phrasal verbs. Yet, despite the available resources, there is a shocking lack of connection to or awareness of the most relevant theories that have come to dominate this field of study, and most lesson plans in circulation are based on outdated theories and understandings of language. Thus, the first part of my research centered on studying, comparing, and analyzing the most effective ways to categorize, make sense of, and present phrasal verbs in ELT contexts. I wanted to know, out of all the ways to teach or categorize phrasal verbs, which ones actually worked.
The objective catalyzed the handbook project -- presenting the theory and
pedagogical approaches in a succinct yet comprehensible way for teachers to easily read. There are many research articles and books written on the topic, but many are sorely
lacking in comprehensibility and clarity. I wanted to try to give teachers a handbook that would present all the information they would need in one place.
1.4 Scope of the Thesis
This thesis is unique from all other works on this topic in that it combines the theory and pedagogical concepts necessary to teach phrasal verbs in this way. Many English language teachers have been informed by a lexico-semantic understanding of language, a tradition that strictly delineates between lexis (words) and grammar. For a number of reasons, this view of language limits the teachability of language features like phrasal verbs, so in order for teachers to move to a new teaching approach, they must first be introduced to a new way of thinking about language. The entire second chapter is dedicated to immersing teachers in this new way of thinking about language.
Yet teachers also need to know how to translate this theory into practice, so the third chapter of the thesis presents the theory and pedagogical knowledge necessary for teachers to teach phrasal verbs effectively. That chapter is intended to function as its own work, as it is intended to be read independently of the rest of the thesis. Eventually, the handbook might be distributed as a guide and introduction to these concepts. For that chapter, my target audience is English language teachers who want to become more effective in their teaching approaches.
1.5 Organization of the Thesis
The organization of the thesis is fairly simple, and it consists of four chapters. In this current chapter, we laid the purpose, scope, and motivation for the project. In the second chapter, I delve into a discussion of phrasal verbs, what makes them difficult to teach, and a comparison between traditional approaches to teaching them and the more
recent cognitive linguistic perspective. Chapter two ends with further justification for the creation of a pedagogical handbook. The third chapter -- the pedagogical handbook -- is the center of the thesis project and functions as an independent work. It contains an overview of the theory and pedagogical knowledge necessary to teach phrasal verbs. The final chapter is a reflection on the project and general discussion, leading up to the
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THEORY
2.1 Introduction to Phrasal VerbsPhrasal verbs - such as take up, go on, get over, and get along with - also referred to as multi-word verbs or verb + particle constructions, are incredibly common in the English language, especially in spoken communication. While definitions and
interpretations vary among theoreticians, a phrasal verb is a construction containing a verb plus an additional particle following, either a preposition or adverb. According to
The American Heritage Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs (2005),
“A phrasal verb is a combination of an ordinary verb and a
preposition or an adverbial particle that has at least one particular meaning that is not predictable from the combined literal meanings of the verb and the preposition or particle” (p. v).
Phrasal verbs can contain multiple particles, such as get along with, and for the purpose of the current paper, they will be regarded in the same category as traditional phrasal verbs. Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) find phrasal verbs to be “ubiquitous,” and Gardner and Davies (2007) estimate that “learners will encounter, on average, one [phrasal verb construction] in every 150 words of English they are exposed to” (p. 347). Their prevalence and usage makes these constructions essential in language learning.
2.2 Difficulties with Learning Phrasal Verbs
These common and ubiquitous phrases are considered one of the most difficult constructions to learn in the English language, one primary reason being their meanings have often been regarded as arbitrary, random, and unpredictable (Walkova, 2012). As such, phrasal verbs are typically classified as a type of idiomatic expression, with ranging degrees of idiomaticity. As noted by Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999), Walkova (2012), and White (2012), the meanings of phrasal verbs range from transparent or literal (e.g. sit up) to aspectual or completive (e.g. drink up) to idiomatic (figure out). Nevertheless, while some phrasal verbs can be regarded as being more literal in
meaning, the vast majority - and the ones pertinent to the current study - are those that are aspectual or idiomatic in meaning. These are the phrasal verbs that are most difficult for ELLs, given that their meaning cannot be easily or observably derived from the meanings of the individual verb and particle of the phrasal construction.
In addition to their seemingly arbitrary meanings, phrasal verbs are also highly polysemous, meaning they have multiple, distinct meanings. In their analysis of the British National Corpus, Gardner and Davis (2007) found an average of 5.6 distinct meanings for each of the 100 most frequent phrasal verbs, and over 20 distinct meanings just for the phrase go on (White, 2012, p. 1). This significantly adds to the complexity of learning phrasal verbs. While memorizing 100 verb-particle combinations might be feasible for a student, individually memorizing the distinct sense of each of the polysemous meanings is virtually impossible.
The unpredictability and polysemous nature of phrasal verbs are just two of the difficulties associated with learning phrasal verbs. A third major issue for learners is the
complicated syntax associated with the constructions. As Kovacs (2011b) points out, the general rule is that the noun phrase (NP) either precedes or follows the particle in a phrasal verb. Yet exceptions and contingencies apply, either due to the nature of the NP or the phrasal verb. If the NP is in pronoun form, it changes the appropriate placement and order of the phrasal verb construction, and Kovacs (2011b) notes that the NP in participle form also influences the verb particle order. Furthermore, some phrasal verbs can be separated, meaning the direct object can be situated between the verb and
particle, while other times it cannot. While there are some simple patterns and rules to follow, the syntax can add another layer of frustration for students.
For instance, for the phrasal verb pick up, the following constructions are appropriate:
1. He stooped down to pick up the pencil 2. He stooped down to pick the pencil up
In the first sentence, the noun phrase the pencil comes after the particle, whereas, in the second sentence, the noun phrase precedes the particle. Since we are able to split the phrasal verb with the noun phrase, the phrasal verb pick up would be considered
separable. When the noun phrase is replaced by a pronoun, the same rules do not apply. Consider the following examples:
1. He stooped down to pick up it 2. He stooped down to pick it up
The first sentence is incorrect, as the pronoun makes the traditional construction impossible; the only correct position for the pronoun is in front of the particle. This is just one example of the complexities regarding the syntax of phrasal verbs.
In recent years, researchers have noted other problems with learning these constructions, such as the sheer number of phrasal verbs in the English language, making individual memorization an even more daunting task. Indeed, while lists and whole dictionaries have been created, Bolinger (1971) notes that native speakers generate novel phrasal verbs regularly (White, 2012, p. 420). In addition, English is one of only a few languages that contain phrasal verbs, making this a marked construction, difficult for speakers from many other language backgrounds. Multiple studies have noted the avoidance of phrasal verbs among native Hebrew and Chinese L2 English users, as both languages do not contain phrasal verbs. Even among Dutch and Swedish, languages that contain them, L2 English users have been found to avoid English phrasal verbs (White, 2012).
In short, there are a host of reasons why phrasal verbs are one of the most difficult constructions to learn in English. Not only are their meanings incredibly unpredictable and polysemous, their syntax is difficult to learn, making many students choose to avoid them or arduously try to individually memorize each of the individual meanings for the phrases. Kovacs (2011b) finds that these difficulties in learning the constructions often lead learners to the assumption that “phrasal verbs are an arbitrary combination of a verb and a particle and that - since there don’t appear to be any
obvious rules - phrasal verbs just have to be individually learnt and remembered” (p. 142). This belief in the lack of a rule-based system governing phrasal verbs has
dominated theory and practice for years, propagating the mindset that the only way to learn phrasal verbs is through rote memorization or naturalistic acquisition based on extensive input.
2.3 The Traditional Approach to Phrasal Verbs
Phrasal verbs and other idiomatic expressions have not been a significant topic of research or inquiry until recently. Yet even in the past century, a number of linguists have taken it upon themselves to provide a systematic understanding for the form and meaning of these expressions. The following section provides an overview of the lexico-semantic view of language and the conceptions of idiomatic expressions like phrasal verbs that stemmed from that understanding.
2.3.1 Lexico-Semantic View of Meaning
The majority of these traditional linguists were from the lexico-semantic
tradition, a tradition that centers on assigning meaning to individual words or particles with little respect to dynamic changes in meaning with larger constructions. According to this philosophy, words or morphemes could be thought of as small meaning-units which could be combined together through grammar to form larger meaningful units.
Tyler and Evans (2003) note that linguists in the lexico-semantic approach tended to assume that the form of phrasal verbs are “conventionally paired with meanings, and that these form-meaning pairings are stored in a mental dictionary or lexicon” (p. 1). In other words, traditionalists have treated phrasal verbs like any other lexical form: they have their own distinct meanings and need to be uniquely stored in the mental lexicon (memorized and categorized individually).
2.3.2 Traditional Understandings of Phrasal Verbs
Given their understanding of meaning in language, these linguists developed a narrow view for analyzing phrasal verbs. Instead of focusing on meaning making and
how different meanings are formed within phrasal verbs, they primarily focused their analysis on the syntactic properties of the constructions (Kovacs, 2011b, p. 143).
For those who primarily focused on syntax, they generally took two approaches to meaning in phrasal verbs: ignoring differences in meaning or regarding meanings as arbitrary. Some tended to ignore the fact that phrasal verbs have distinct and varied meanings. In these treatments of phrasal verbs, the multiple meanings of phrasal verbs was often overlooked and did not contribute to their overall understanding of how meaning is formed within these constructions (Tyler and Evans, 2003, p. 1).
The more common approach in traditional lexico-semantics has been to
recognize the multiple meanings but assume that those meanings are arbitrary. These linguists argue that there is no noticeable connection between the individual meanings of the verb and the particle and the composite meaning of the phrasal verb. They argue that the meanings of the particles do not contribute to the meaning of the phrasal verb at all.
Fraser (1976) is one example of this view, where he explicitly argues: “there is no need to associate any semantic feature with the particle, only phonological and syntactic features” (p. 77). In other words, he regards the meanings of the particles as moot in the semantic understanding of phrasal verbs, leading him to simply focus on the syntactic and phonological features of the constructions. Neagu (2007) points out that, according to Fraser (1976), “there is no obvious way of predicting the effect that the addition of the particle has on the interpretation of the verb” (p. 123). That is, for phrasal verbs, the particle carries no meaning and bears no weight in the interpretation of the expressions.
This would mean that there is no systematic way of determining the meaning of phrasal verbs by their constituents.
The way the verb and particle combine to form meaning is just one aspect to meaning-making in phrasal verbs. Another challenging task for traditionalists was to explain the distinct meanings within each phrasal verb, as phrasal verbs tend to have a range of different meanings. The way traditionalists generally accounted for these differences in meaning was through homonymy, that is, that the meanings within phrasal verbs are unrelated. A commonly used example of homonymy is with the word
bank, where the form is paired with two unrelated meanings: (1) a financial institution
and (2) the side of a river. Just like the form bank, traditionalists apply the same
theoretical considerations to phrasal verbs, treating distinctions in meaning as arbitrary and unrelated homonyms.
This view assumes that for each distinct meaning of a phrasal verb, native speakers have memorized a unique, unrelated meaning for that form. This means that, for verbs like go on with over 20 distinct meanings (White, 2012), native English
speakers have memorized and categorized over 20 distinct form-meaning pairs. The fact that each of these distinct meanings share a common form is arbitrary, as the meanings are no more related to each other than the meanings of the word bank. Tyler and Evans (2003) even point out that, according to this view, “the fact that the different senses are coded by the same linguistic form is presumably just an accident” (p. 5). This means that any distinct meaning of go on could just as easily be paired with another form like go
short, the view is that the form go on can have a host of distinct, unrelated meanings that are simply memorized as distinct lexical units.
Structuralists who have propagated this view started in the 30’s with Bloomfield and have persisted to more recent linguists such as Chomsky. These linguists assert that there is no systematic way of understanding relationships between the meanings of particular phrasal verb forms. All differences in meaning have been explained as homonymous and thus unrelated and arbitrarily connected to the word form. For
learners of English, this means that each form and each distinct meaning of each form -- must be memorized individually with no schematic connection whatsoever. This is the view that has dominated teaching of idiomatic expressions for years.
2.3.3 Weaknesses of the Traditional View
There are a number of weaknesses in the traditional view, both from theoretical and pedagogical perspectives. One of the primary critiques of the traditional approaches to phrasal verbs centers on the shortcomings of the homonymy view. Tyler and Evans (2003) point out a number of weaknesses in treating phrasal verb meanings as
homonymous, the first being that it “ignores any systematic relationships among the distinct meanings associated with a single linguistic form” (p. 5). This is perhaps the greatest weakness with the homonymy view. Not only does this approach ignore a significant body of research from the past forty years, it also fails to recognize that there is any connection between multiple forms of a particular phrasal verb.
Another weakness Tyler and Evans (2003) mention is that the traditional approach ignores the purposeful nature of communication. When communication occurs, people use forms purposefully such that the intended meaning of their message
might be conveyed. Traditionalists would argue that, while the lexical form-meaning pairing might be arbitrary, clarity in communication comes from context (i.e. syntax). While it may be true that the context often helps clarify which meaning is paired with the form, it does not explain how novel forms have come into speech. For “in order for a novel use to be readily interpretable by the hearer, meaning extension must be
somehow constrained and systematic” (Tyler and Evans, p. 6). If meanings of phrasal verbs were truly arbitrary and there was no connection between distinct meanings, then there is no explanation for how these distinct forms came to be. The only logical way for new meanings to be introduced is if those meanings are somehow related. If they were not, they would no doubt be confused with another meaning of the same form. In this way, while the homonymous view might offer an account for the present meanings of the forms, it fails to address how those forms have been introduced into the language and usage.
Aside from the critiques of the homonymy view, there are a number of other weaknesses of the traditional view as a whole. Not only does it fail to provide a
systematic way for understanding meaning differences, it does not address how meaning is formed as a whole. Traditionalists argue that the meaning of the particle has no
bearing on the meaning of the phrasal verb, which forces learners to memorize each individual expression without any systematic connection to the meaning of the
constituents within the phrasal verb. This view is frustrating, not only from a theoretical perspective, but from a pedagogical one, as teachers are left with treating each phrasal verb as an isolated lexical item with no connection to their students’ prior knowledge of the verb or particle meanings.
Furthermore, the traditional approach does not address the human conceptual system as a basis for meaning formation. According to lexico-semantics, meaning is the product of lexis and grammar combining in unique ways. However, instead of deriving meaning directly from the world and communication, humans interpret their world through an interconnected conceptual system, a system that is largely ignored by traditionalists.
Pedagogically, the traditional approach has failed to provide English language learners any substantive or systematic approach to learning idiomatic expressions like phrasal verbs. Since vocabulary is largely regarded as the locus of the idiomatic by lexical semanticists, English learners are told that the only way to learn the forms is through memorization, for according to this view, there is no system or pattern to their meanings. The only way to structure the learning is to go outside the meanings of the expressions to look at syntax or common verbs and particles. Often, teachers teach phrasal verbs in groups, teaching words that are syntactically or semantically related, yet these approaches still fail to adequately connect the meanings of the new forms with students’ prior knowledge of the particles and verbs. Thus, while various techniques and approaches have been adopted by teachers, the traditional lexico-semantic
understanding of language cannot provide a systematic understanding for why and how meaning works in phrasal verbs, vital information for students learning these forms.
In short, although the traditional approach has provided us with a basic understanding of the syntactic organization of phrasal verbs and differences in
homonymy and polysemy (Kovacs, 2011a), it has failed to address the more fundamental issues pertaining to meaning, such as how meanings are formed, why phrasal verbs have
multiple senses and meanings, and how those meanings are connected or motivated. It was not until the development of cognitive linguistics that these questions were finally answered and these issues of meaning were moved to the center of research and inquiry.
2.4 The Cognitive Approach to Phrasal Verbs
Unlike the traditional views, the cognitive approach to phrasal verbs makes what Holme (2012) calls “the functional assumption that form is motivated by meaning” (p. 6). In other words, the form of a word is connected to its meaning; they are not arbitrary associations. This means that, contrary to the traditional approach that views lexis and grammar as two separate entities, cognitive linguists understand that these are
connected. In lexico-semantic linguistics, meaning is stored in the words themselves, and several distinct meanings could be associated with the same word form.
In cognitive linguistics, however, instead of viewing meaning as a static entity, it is viewed as a dynamic product of both lexis and grammar, in that both contribute to meaning formation. Cognitive linguistics tends to treat grammar and lexis on two ends of a “semantic continuum” (Holme, 2012, p. 6), that is, that both grammar and lexis are responsible for changes in meaning. This shift in perspective is highlighted by John Sinclair (2000) in his article, “Lexical Grammar”:
The fundamental distinction between grammar, on the one hand, and lexis, on the other hand, is not as fundamental as it is usually held to be, and since it is a distinction that is made at the outset of the formal study of language, then it colours and distorts the whole enterprise (Sinclair, 2000).
Therefore, while traditional scholars believe that meanings, including arbitrary meanings, reside solely in vocabulary, cognitive linguists have
discovered that “the arbitrary” is actually much more motivated and predictable than we had previously understood. To understand how meanings are
systemically related, though, it is important to understand the way the mind and the conceptual world affects language and communication.
2.4.1 Introduction to Cognitive Linguistic Theory: Embodied Meaning
Cognitive linguistics (CL) holds to a conceptual understanding of language and thought formed through our experience in the world. According to the Cartesian
understanding of cognition, we form thoughts about the world around us, and language refers to those thoughts about the real world. According to this view, we experience the real, objective world directly through our thoughts, where we reflect about the world. Our thoughts then form language that refers to the real world that we have reflected on.
Unlike the traditional views of cognition where individuals form thoughts about the objective world around them, CL relies on a view of cognition where thoughts are formed through our embodied experiences in the world. This embodied principle, originates from French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty in 1945, in his work
Phenomenology of Perception. Merleau-Ponty argued that, since humans have bodies, our
experience of the world around us comes through our bodies, not from our thoughts directly interacting with the world around us. Merleau-Ponty contradicts Descartes and argues “rather than a mind and a body, man is a mind with a body, a being who can only get to the truth of things because its body is, as it were, embedded in those thing(s)”
(Stolz, 2015, p. 479). In other words, as humans, we do not gather information about the world directly through our minds, but through our bodies.
Our embodied experiences shape our understanding and form interpretive cognitive structures that shape our interpretation of the world around us. Stolz (2015) continues by arguing that “we do not think about the world from some position beyond the body or outside it, but something we ‘inhabit’ because our being is necessarily present in it and involved with it” (p. 479-480). The way we experience the world through our bodies, then, shapes our conceptual understanding of the world around us.
Given the fact that we interpret the world, not directly through our minds but rather through our bodies, it means that our conception of the world is not the actual world but a conceptual world. Our bodily experiences form our interpretive framework for the world, but the world we think about and talk about is not the objective, real world, but a conceptual world, formed by our embodied experiences in the objective world. Thus, it is impossible for humans to think a completely objective thought about the world, for as embodied creatures, we are subjects in the world, and the information we receive about the world is mediated through our bodies.
Instead of being directly related, thoughts and the objective world are mediated by our conceptual frameworks. In this way, we actually do not experience the objectively real world directly, but it is filtered by our mental representations and frameworks that interpret the input from the natural world. To illustrate, consider the following picture in Figure 2.4.1. Upon looking at the picture, some would say it is a picture of a rabbit; others would argue the subject of the picture is a duck. The input from the world (the picture printed on the page) has not changed, but the interpretations are drastically
different because they are informed by our respective conceptual frameworks of the world. Information is mediated through our bodies (in this case, our eyes), and that information is interpreted through our minds.
Thus, regardless of the reality around us, we do not passively receive information. In our reception of information around us, we inherently interpret the world around us. Tyler and Evans (2003) describe this phenomenon by saying “the patterns and
organization we perceive as reality do not in fact exist independently in the world itself, but are largely the result of our cognitive processing” (p. 19). Therefore, while two people can be shown the same object, they interpret the content as two very different things. One person will see a rabbit, and the other will see a duck.
We don’t transmit thoughts directly from the world around us. We interpret them according to our conceptual understanding of the world. My eyes (part of my embodied experience) transmit the experience to my mind, where through my interpretive lens, I form thoughts about what I see. Interpretation is inherent in our understanding of the world. This is true because language is primarily “conceptualized out of the way our bodies and minds shape our perceptions” (Holme, 2012, p. 6).
To offer another example of embodiment, consider our conception of things being “in front of” us, an illustration that Lakoff and Johnson (1999) also give to articulate this embodied principle. Humans are bipedal, upright creatures that can lay down, sit, stand up, or move forward, and as such, our bodies are positioned and move through space in accordance with the confines of our physical bodies. Given the ways our bodies move, we generally think of things being “in front of” us as anything in our line of vision or in the direction we are moving. Lakoff and Johnson (1999) point out that our
understanding of “in front of” is directly dependent on our embodiment, for long, flat creatures that swiveled side-to-side might have a completely different concept for “in front of” or maybe none at all.
Similarly, when infants are able to achieve balance and sit up, they “build a series of mental associations with that sensation” (Holme, 2012, p. 8), a series of associations known as an image schema. Holme (2012) notes that since the infant’s feelings of
balance are positive, there is a positive mental association with balance and uprightness, which is also infused into the child’s interpretive framework of the world around them. In this way, bodily experiences are neither neutral nor passive; when we form cognitive frameworks of the world through embodiment, we also attach feelings to those
frameworks. All thoughts and language, then, are formed through this conceptual framework of the world, where not only facts but values and feelings are embedded.
The embodiment principle explains how we interpret the world around us: according to the cognitive frameworks of a conceptual world formed through our bodily experiences in the world. And as such, language refers not to the real, objective world, but to a conceptual world formed through our embodied experiences. Nevertheless, in
order to fully grasp how language is tied to this conceptual world, we must understand how the embodiment principle helps to form language through metaphor.
2.4.2 The Embodiment Principle and Language: Conceptual Metaphors
According to the embodiment principle, our understanding of the world is transmitted through our embodied experiences in the world. If this is true, then there are a number of physical experiences that we experience directly with our bodies (heat, up/down orientation, objects moving through space, objects contained within other objects, etc.). These concepts can be thought of as pertaining to an experiential domain, where our knowledge of them is formed directly through our bodily experience in the world.
There is another whole domain (which we shall call the abstract domain)
containing concepts and ideas such as love, relationship, time, causation, emotion, and so on. Entities in this domain cannot be immediately experienced by our bodies as with the experiential domain. Having already established that the mind cannot reflect directly on entities in the real, objective world, it is dependent on bodily experiences to form
conceptual thoughts.
Thus, in order for our minds to form thoughts about these concepts and ideas outside our experiential domain, the mind draws from items in the experiential domain to conceptualize concepts in the abstract domain.
An example of drawing on the experiential domain to conceptualize ideas in the abstract domain is our understanding of what knowledge is. The concept of knowledge is incredibly abstract, so to think about and conceptualize the notion of knowledge, we think of it in terms of a more concrete, accessible concept: sight. In our everyday
experiences, we form an understanding of sight, and when things are hard for us to see, we might say they are unclear, murky, cloudy, fuzzy, opaque, or foggy, and conversely, when something is easy to see, we might say that thing is clear, bright, brilliant, or transparent. When conceptualizing knowledge (from the more abstract domain), we use the same terminology to describe knowledge.
Something that is easy to understand can be described as clear, transparent, or crystal clear. Something that is difficult to understand might be said to be unclear or cloudy; we might be fuzzy about an idea, or something might seem foggy to us. If we lack knowledge, we use the sight domain as well. Someone might be “overlooking an
important point” or be experiencing “tunnel-vision”. Or maybe they are being “blind” or “myopic,” perhaps because they are “blinded by love” or wearing “rose-colored glasses”. If we want to gain more knowledge about something, we might need to “take a closer look,” “gain perspective,” or “have our eyes opened”. Then, when someone “sheds some light” on the subject matter for us, we might have “a lightbulb moment” when we come to an understanding and acquire our needed knowledge.
In this example, an idea or concept from an abstract domain is directly
inaccessible by our bodily experience, so in order to be able to conceptualize knowledge, we draw on the experiential domain of vision and sight to make sense of it. Many ideas are inaccessible through our body directly, so to access these ideas, we think about them -- conceptualize them -- in terms of something in the experiential domain. This process of thinking about and speaking about one domain in terms of another is what Lakoff and Johnson call conceptual metaphors. We are thinking of something metaphorically in terms of another thing.
Yet unlike traditional understandings of metaphor, conceptual metaphors are not just ornamental language that reside in our words; they are the way we think about the world. Lakoff and Johnson, in Metaphors We Live By, argue that much of our cognition is dependent on metaphor. All abstract thinking is dependent on this metaphorical
“mapping” of one domain on the other, of thinking of one thing in terms of another. We think of time in terms of money (e.g. running out of time, wasting time, saving time) emotions in terms of containers full of hot liquids (e.g. blowing off some steam, boiling up inside, feeling drained) and arguments in terms of war (defending your arguments, attacking your opponent’s weakest argument, shooting down an argument). While it is not immediately apparent to most of us, our conceptual understanding is built largely upon metaphor. Any abstract thinking we engage in is dependent on conceptual
metaphors, drawing from our embodied experiences. Lakoff and Johnson say, “If we are right in suggesting that our conceptual system is largely metaphorical, then the way we think, what we experience, and what we do every day is very much a matter of
metaphor” (p. 4). As such, metaphors are both pervasive and integral in all parts of cognition.
2.4.3 Cognitive Linguistic Applications to Phrasal Verbs
As mentioned previously, phrasal verbs are one of the most difficult constructions for English language learners to master, primarily because of their
seemingly arbitrary and polysemous meanings. Traditional understandings have argued that these meanings are random and have no necessary relationship with the meanings of the verb and particle. Furthermore, traditional approaches have argued that the multiple meanings are homonymous, i.e. that their meanings are not related to each
other. CL insights, though, show that the meanings of verbs are in fact motivated in meaningful and systematic ways.
Instead of treating multiple meanings of phrasal verbs as homonymous, cognitive linguists treat them as polysemous, i.e. that that their meanings are distinct but related to each other. Kovacs (2011a) argues that the meanings of phrasal verbs “are related in a systematic and natural way forming radial categories where one or more senses are more prototypical (central) while others are less prototypical (peripheral)” (p. 14). In other words, within phrasal verbs, it is believed that there is a prototypical or literal sense of the phrasal verb, a base meaning, and other polysemous meanings are derived from that central meaning.
The way these peripheral meanings are formed is through metaphorical mapping, that is, “when their literal meanings are extended to abstract, non-visible domains such as thoughts, intentions, feelings, attitudes, relations, social and economic interaction, etc.” (Rudzka-Ostyn, 2003, p. 4). While it is not common to think of prepositions and adverbs as being metaphorical, they actually do have metaphorical meanings that are derived from a central meaning. For instance, our understanding of “up” can be reflected literally in the phrasal verb “sit up,” where up refers to a literal direction the body moves with the action of sitting. Yet this particle can also be metaphorically extended, as in the phrasal verb “clean up,” where “up” takes on a new meaning of “completion”. The two meanings -- the literal “up” in direction and “completion” -- are not separate, unrelated meanings; the latter has been metaphorically mapped onto the prototypical meaning.
For this reason, phrasal verbs are not just an idiomatic expressions with arbitrary meanings; their meanings “can be seen as motivated by metaphors that link domains of
knowledge to idiomatic meanings” (Kovacs, 2011a, p. 14). In other words, in the same way that concepts in the abstract domain are mapped onto concepts in our experiential domain, so too, phrasal verbs exhibit similar patterns, demonstrating that “they are not simply a matter of language but products of our conceptual system” (Kovacs, 2011a, p. 14).
If this is true, and phrasal verbs are products of our conceptual systems, then like any other language feature, they are at least partially language and culture dependent. The way concepts are mapped onto other concepts varies with each language, so to a non-native English speaker, this metaphorical mapping can be difficult to discern. Kovacs (2011b) notes that “the meanings of phrasal verbs also go easily from the concrete to the abstract, and metaphors serve as a link between them. Since foreign learners often do not see this path and do not recognize the metaphor underlying the abstract meanings, they find many phrasal verbs difficult to understand” (p. 146). The metaphorical mapping is something native English speakers understand, as it is embedded in their conceptual frameworks, but for those from another language background, those implicit metaphors can be incredibly difficult to detect.
Nevertheless, making these metaphors explicit for LLs reveals the systematic relationships of the phrasal verb meanings. There is a growing body of research pointing to the benefits of including explicit metaphor instruction as means for teaching phrasal verbs. Some researchers have used spatial imagery to show the related meanings of phrasal verbs and have experienced mixed results. Some of the studies (Condon, 2008) have shown to be somewhat beneficial, while others Boers (2000) have reported significant results.
More variations to these approaches are being studied and tested in classroom settings, yet regardless of preliminary results, the CL understanding of phrasal verbs has opened up the door for a host of new pedagogical practices. Now, due to this
understanding of the motivation of meanings, teachers do not simply have to resort to word lists and memorization, for these meanings are not simply arbitrary. There is a system of meaning to these expressions, and if learners are given insight into the underlying metaphors, it will be easier for them to understand and remember their meanings.
2.5 Cognitive Linguistics in Contemporary English Language Teaching
In recent years, given the rise of communicative language teaching, one might think that Cognitive Linguistic findings would naturally be applied in many ELT
contexts. Bailey (2003) points out that recent corpus-based insights into the nature of language have helped to shape the field of ELT methodology, specifically in regards to the meaning-usage connection of language. He notes that there is greater emphasis on collocation, that is, the ways in which words frequently appear together, influencing ELT methodology to emphasize more on strings and phrases of words, so it would seem that phrasal verbs would start to be emphasized more as an essential learning element of communicative English.
Furthermore, the CL understanding that form and meaning are connected (which was not previously understood) has influenced ELT pedagogical models toward more emphasis on functionality and pragmatic awareness (Bailey, 2003). This new model has revolutionized the field of ELT methodology, and it would seem that CL, with its insight into the motivations behind many of these language connections, would be applied by
many teachers. However, Bailey (2003) notes that this is not the case, as the
communicative emphasis on functionality is limiting in scope and does not necessarily seek to examine language from a conceptual level.
Hoang (2014) agrees and expresses surprise “that metaphor research in L2 learning does not seem to be influenced much by the mainstream cognitive linguistics, since implications of metaphor research have several practical implications for learners, teachers, curriculum designers, and material developers” (n.p.). Therefore, despite the applicability of the CMT to the communicative language learning model, it has not yet permeated the system.
Bailey (2003) notes that, in 1997, Lindstomberg scanned numerous published ELT materials, including textbooks and learner handbooks, fining no mention
whatsoever to metaphor. Conducting his own study, Bailey (2003) confirmed the previous findings, as, while there was significant influence of the communicative language learning, there was almost no reference to metaphor or the conceptual basis for language. In this way, while there has been extensive research conducted favoring application of CL and conceptual models of language in general, the theories have not been extended to ELT materials and methodology. In his review of ELT Literature, he recounted:
In none of the above is there any attempt to consider the conceptual basis of language; there is little attempt to show how expressions can be linked or differentiated. The result is, as Low (1988) points out, that learners are not told when the expression may be used, what the possible extensions and constraints are, and what aspects of the target domain are highlighted
by the source. In short, there has been and continues to be little concern with metaphor in ELT (Bailey, 2003, n.p.).
He further notes that in the published syllabuses of the Royal Society of Arts Certificate and Diploma in Teaching English as a Foreign Language to Adults (Cert/Dip TEFLA), there is no reference whatsoever to a conceptual understanding of language or metaphor theory at large, let alone applications to teaching practices.
2.6 Reasons for the Lack of ELT Application
There are several possible reasons why cognitive linguistics has not gained the traction many thought it would in English Language Teaching. One potential reason for this is the continued predominance of many traditional metaphor theories that continue to shape and influence multiple domains on a practical level, including ELT. This is certainly true, as the lack of reference in printed ELT materials – including teacher training and development – points to a general lack of knowledge regarding CL. Traditional metaphor theories have little to no application whatsoever to English Language teaching, so a lack of information regarding metaphor in general – and a conceptual approach to language, in particular – evidences this lack of CL infiltration. Nevertheless, this is indicative, not only of teachers’ lack of knowledge regarding conceptual language systems, but a failure in teacher preparation and training.
Others might point to the lack of research regarding CL application in English Language Teaching. This is certainly true, as there have been very few studies conducted exploring this connection. Yet the problem appears to lie, not in the lack of research per se, but in the general disconnect between L2 research and learning. Hoang (2014) points out that “despite its vigorous growth, research on metaphor and L2 education remains
scarce, and the practical applications of this knowledge for language teaching have not been explored” (n.p.) She notes that “teaching and researching remain worlds apart” (n.p.) and finds the lack of application in teaching methodology concerning. Thus, while research is continuing to explore various applications of conceptual models of language to this field, the actual ELT pedagogy remains relatively untouched.
The main reason for the divergence of research and methodology is presentation and accessibility of CL research for teachers. Hoang (2014) notes that in many recent CL studies, there have been suggestions for classroom activities, but “the findings of current literature on metaphor have not been presented in a way that is systematic and teacher-friendly enough for a metaphor-based teaching approach to be implemented to the full” (n.p.). Hoang (2014) argues that it may be unrealistic to expect teachers to research these studies on their own and make the suggested theoretical applications, and
teachers need hands-on training or accessible materials in order to confidently apply the CL to their classrooms.
2.7 Proposed Solution: CL Teacher Handbook
In light of the disconnect between current research and ELT methodology, the purpose of the current project is to design a Cognitive Linguistics Teacher Handbook designed to assimilate the pedagogical suggestions in the predominant research studies and distill the content for L2 teachers. This handbook could be used for teacher
development, as it would provide accessible examples and detailed explanations as to practical applications of the CL in their classroom activities, specifically relating to phrasal verbs. The basic tenants of CL would be explained to the teachers as well as some particular applications for their teaching.
The full outline and details will be further outlined in a later section. However, some of the concepts covered in the handbook would include the importance of
metaphorical competence in light of the larger communicative competence framework, which will be referencing the work of Low (1988) among others. Moreover, particular strategies will be presented for teaching phrasal verbs.
While further teacher development programs will be necessary to fully equip L2 teachers to incorporate CL in their teaching methodology, this would be an initial step in teacher preparation and bridging the gap between the growing body of research and English Language Teaching as a whole.
CHAPTER 3
TEACHER’S GUIDE TO TEACHING PHRASAL VERBS
3.1 General IntroductionThe following two sections serve as the introduction to the handbook. In this introduction, I discuss the importance of phrasal verb teaching, introduce some key concepts and findings in cognitive linguistics, and outline the rest of the handbook.
3.1.1 Introduction to the Handbook
The first time I ever taught phrasal verbs was a disaster. I remember standing in front of a roomful of students from my Intermediate English Class, preparing for the lesson on “Phrasal Verbs in the Workplace”. After a couple introductory exercises to start off the class, we turned our attention to the phrasal verb exercise.
I began by identifying individual phrasal verbs from the vocabulary list and proceeded to offer definitions for the students. For many of the words (e.g. call back,
clean up, fill out, hand out, turn down, put away, and throw away), I drew diagrams on the
board to illustrate their respective meanings. I thought the presentation was straightforward and coherent.
Yet as the students started chiming in with their questions, it quickly became clear that the subject matter was far more complicated than I had previously anticipated. My 15 minute presentation quickly turned into 20 then 30, as students continued to question the varied meanings and usage of the new verb forms. I explained the verb and particle meanings; I tried to distinguish between different senses, but despite the
And based on exercises and comprehension checks later that night, I realized that much of what we worked on didn’t stick. Many of the students left the class more
confused than before. It seemed that, despite my efforts to clarify, phrasal verbs are simply too hard to teach effectively.
As teachers, perhaps some of you can relate to my experience and frustration in the classroom. Maybe you have attempted to teach phrasal verbs to your students or offer some sort of cohesive explanation to them. Perhaps after trying to demystify the constructions, you gave up on these idiomatic forms, as students repeatedly avoid and misuse them. As teachers, we want to be able to distill and explain difficult concepts for our students. We live for the moments where it all clicks for our students. Yet the moment of realization never seems to come with phrasal verbs. Instead, it seems like nothing but a litany of endless memorization, as students struggle with one phrasal verb after another.
My teaching experience catalyzed a personal investigation into theories and approaches to teaching idiomatic expressions like phrasal verbs. I was convinced that there must be some way to present these concepts in a way that English language learners could understand, apart from word lists and rote memorization. Eventually, after researching and comparing many different strategies, I discovered a growing body of research in cognitive linguistics, where researchers are finding systematic ways to organize and teach these constructions.
Over the last forty years, there has been a tremendous amount of research in cognitive linguistics aimed at analyzing idiomatic forms like phrasal verbs. Yet despite the breakthroughs in research, these new theories have failed to penetrate our
pedagogical practices. To this day, there has been no significant change in teaching approaches to idiomatic expressions like phrasal verbs.
As such, this handbook serves as a bridge between the theory and practice, as it introduces the predominant theories in cognitive linguistics and sheds light on some pedagogical implications for teachers. In the following pages, we will overview traditional approaches to phrasal verbs and highlight the weaknesses of those views, specifically with a pedagogical focus. Then, by exploring research findings from cognitive linguistics, we will unpack a new way of approaching phrasal verbs, with what will be termed the cognitive approach.
There are far more extensive studies and materials written on cognitive
linguistics, and it is not the purpose of this handbook to substitute for those resources. The following is merely an introduction to the theories and stepping stone for teachers to understand a new approach to teaching these constructions. This is a distillation of these concepts for teachers and opens the door for more practical and informed ways of teaching difficult language structures.
3.1.2 Importance of Explicit Instruction with Phrasal Verbs
One of the most frequent multi-word units in English is the phrasal verb. As Gardner and Davies (2007) note, phrasal verbs are “very common and highly productive in the English language as a whole” (p. 340), with a small percentage of them (less than 100) making up over half the phrasal verbs in the whole language. They also estimate that “learners will encounter, on average, one [phrasal verb construction] in every 150 words of English they are exposed to” (p. 347). And that ratio simply increases with conversational genres and registers. As language learners seek to become competent in
spoken English, phrasal verbs are an essential construction to master (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999).
Yet with the rise of communicative language teaching, and as task-based
approaches currently dominate English language pedagogy, the importance of explicit phrasal verb teaching -- and vocabulary teaching in general -- is sometimes overlooked. While teachers rightly focus on communicative competence and interactions between language learners in a variety of authentic language contexts, this focus can lead to some oversight. Many language teachers tend to look down on explicit instructional models and any form of direct vocabulary teaching in general, as they believe it takes away from the communicative contexts or task-based exercises. This is what Boers and
Lindstromberg (2008) note when they state the following:
theorists of [language] pedagogy, particularly in English-speaking countries, have long tended to favour approaches that in one way or another discount the importance of teaching vocabulary, with many stoutly persisting in their methodological allegiances in the face of
mounting evidence that vocabulary is a crucial factor in ability to read and understand challenging texts (p. 7)
While there is nothing wrong with communicative or task-based approaches, proponents of these approaches can tend to overlook the critical role that vocabulary -- and explicit vocabulary instruction -- plays in the acquisition of language. Instead of simply being additive to language learning, explicit vocabulary teaching is central to the development of language competence. With the development of large-scale corpora, linguists have been able to uncover language patterns previously unnoticed, revealing
the ubiquity of multi-word units and vocabulary collocations in English. These findings reveal that, instead of consisting strictly of lexis and syntax, language tends to be comprised of multi-word constructions and word collocations like phrasal verbs.
Boers and Lindstromberg (2008) note that these recent corpus findings have greatly influenced theories in English language teaching, and many theorists have come to the conclusion that “successful L2 learning is to a very great extent a matter of
understanding and remembering collocational tendencies and prefabricated multi-word expressions (i.e. memorized phrases) and that learners ought to be helped to acquire them in large numbers” (p. 7). Thus, when it comes to developing a communicative competence of the language, multi-word vocabulary units are central for language
learners to master. A large number of language teaching theorists are now accepting this new understanding of vocabulary (as expanded into words and phrases) as being of high importance in developing proficiency in English (Boers and Lindstromberg, 2008, p. 4).
The assumption of this handbook is that explicit vocabulary teaching is beneficial, not only in the traditional understanding of teaching single words, but also -- and
perhaps even more importantly -- in teaching word units. Central to these multi-word constructions is the phrasal verb, a form ubiquitous in the English language. Thus, it is the belief of the following book that learning phrasal verbs is a productive endeavor for any language learner, as it will directly contribute to their communicative
competence in English.
As such, the teaching of phrasal verbs must be prioritized by English language teachers for their students’ language development. A critical part of language instruction is understanding the key issues for students and the best practices for teachers to
present those concepts. This handbook seeks to present those best practices. In the following pages, we will review and distill the most recent research in linguistics and language teaching and apply these theories to teaching applications regarding phrasal verbs.
3.2 Foundations in Phrasal Verb Teaching
In this section, we will discuss the nature and difficulties with learning phrasal verbs and outline some key concepts in our understanding of what teachers can do when teaching these constructions.
3.2.1 Introduction to Phrasal Verbs
Phrasal verbs -- such as take up, go on, get over, and get along with -- are also referred to as multi-word verb constructions. A phrasal verb contains multiple parts of speech (a verb and either a preposition or an adverb), forming three possible syntactical combinations:
1. Verb + preposition (e.g. take over, fill up) 2. Verb + adverb (e.g. take away, give back)
3. Verb + adverb + preposition (e.g. come up with, get out of)
One of the most important things to understand about phrasal verbs is that they are an independent construction, and the constituents that make them up function differently inside the phrasal verb than they normally do on their own.
Take a preposition, for example. A preposition is defined by its function as the head of a prepositional phrase: a preposition + noun phrase (e.g. My fiancé is cooking
dinner in the kitchen). The preposition in takes the noun phrase the kitchen and forms a
defined as words that function forming prepositional phrases, and they form a closed class of words that fit this category.
When a preposition is combined with a verb to form a phrasal verb, it changes its function: It no longer operates as the head of a prepositional phrase; it is defined in terms of its function within a phrasal verb. When a preposition functions in this new role, we refer to it, not as a preposition, but as a particle, because it is functioning
primarily as part of the phrasal verb. Thus, if we take a preposition like in and combine it with a verb to form a phrasal verb (e.g. fill in as in we needed to fill in the intern on our
company policies), the preposition is referred to as a particle.
The same is true of adverbs, too. Adverbs also form a class of words, similar to prepositions, in that their function is to add contextual information, too. They differ from prepositions because they are not able to take noun phrases to form larger phrases. For instance, we could not say “*I am going away this city” because the adverb away cannot take a noun phrase like this city and form a larger constituent. Instead, we could say “I am going away from this city,” because the adverb is able to modify a
prepositional phrase, not a noun phrase.
When an adverb is combined with a verb to form a phrasal verb, it also changes its function: it no longer functions in a typical adverbial function but as part of the phrasal verb. Thus, like a preposition, when it functions inside a phrasal verb (e.g. take
away), it is referred to as a particle.
This can be confusing for both English teachers and students, as phrasal verbs are often defined as verb + preposition constructions. While this is the typical structure of a phrasal verb, its simplicity is problematic in two ways. First, while the majority of
phrasal verbs are the combination of a verb and a preposition, a few phrasal verbs use adverbs instead of prepositions. Secondly, when prepositions or adverbs function in a new role inside a phrasal verb, they lose their original function. It would be inherently misguided then to refer to them as prepositions and adverbs because they are not functioning as such. They are functioning as part of a phrasal verb, so they are referred to as particles.
In the rest of this handbook, we will refer to words according to their function. When prepositions and adverbs are functioning independently as prepositions and adverbs, I will refer to them as such. Yet when they are functioning as part of a phrasal verb, I will refer to them as particles. As such, I will refer to phrasal verbs as verb + particle constructions. This is a comprehensive term that will refer to any of the above three syntactical structures.
3.2.2 The Meaning of Phrasal Verbs
The meanings of phrasal verbs cannot always be derived from the individual meanings of the verb and the particle they are composed of. Their meanings range from transparent or literal (where their meanings can be easily derived) to idiomatic, where there seems to be very little connection to the meanings of the verb and the particle. Consider the following examples of literal (transparent) phrasal verbs:
1. They need to stand up so we can see them. 2. Then let's fill up the water tanks
3. Toxic chemical leaked out of a storage tank and into the ground water
In these examples, the phrasal verbs are used literally. For instance, fill up literally refers to water being poured into a tank, and as more water goes in, the level rises (goes
